- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Messages
- 30,260
- Reaction score
- 28,366
Again though, can you imagine some retired ufc champ MMA fighter struggling with a boxer in mma sparring? No. No chance
Yes. I am pretty sure David Haye would destroy Randy Couture.
Again though, can you imagine some retired ufc champ MMA fighter struggling with a boxer in mma sparring? No. No chance
Yes. I am pretty sure David Haye would destroy Randy Couture.
What a poor argument. Men have been fighting each other with their bare hands since the beginning of humans. The possibility of external factors like weapons existing takes nothing away from it.So you have to introduce rules basically, because without any, it's just a meaningless clusterfuck i.e reality.
I don't ever understand why anyone cares who would beat who in these imaginary make-believe "street fights" between athletes. Their ability to fight only has significant use value in combat sports. Outside of that, boxers and MMA fighters can get badly hurt or die in actual violent confrontations on the street without any ceremony whatsoever.
Of course if you have self defense training you have an advantage. Say you end up in a meaningless exchange of words with some dude, and think it's all finished and then next thing you know he has struck you with a weapon or stabbed you it's worthless. That's why bringing up the "in da streetz" argument is fucking stupid. Mma is a sport with rules, street fighting is nothing like that. Surely you can wrap your head around that fact, it's pretty simple.What a poor argument. Men have been fighting each other with their bare hands since the beginning of humans. The possibility of external factors like weapons existing takes nothing away from it.
What you're saying could be used as a really dumb argument against training in any martial art for self defense purposes. It's like saying that all martial arts are useless for self defense because reality is a meaningless clusterfuck.
What a poor argument. Men have been fighting each other with their bare hands since the beginning of humans. The possibility of external factors like weapons existing takes nothing away from it.
What you're saying could be used as a really dumb argument against training in any martial art for self defense purposes. It's like saying that all martial arts are useless for self defense because reality is a meaningless clusterfuck.
Not even fighting, sparring.By judges and referees view. It could score as a knockdown. Other than that it wouldn't matter. Since when does fighting Paulie even a prelude to a moneymay fight?
One thing you can be sure of is this, McG would whoop Floyd and everyone in this forum in a fight with no ref.
I think that's the number one reason for all the hate on McG. You all know the only chance you have of beating a high level mma fighter is to protect yourself with boxing rules. It kills you knowing that in the real world of multidimensional fighting you would get dragged down into the ocean of grappling by sharks. Boxing is useless when you can't stand up.
I don't pretend to know what the result of this fight will be, but it would be funny if this mma fighter who supposedly fights like a clown knocks out Mayweather or even puts up a decent fight against one of the purported GOAT of boxing.
i'm sure humans have been using rocks and tree limbs on each other before they did anything else, mighta even been the first use of tools as it was supposed in the movie 2001. In the streets you have to be mindful of anything and everything and not let your ego blind you. been some good fighters who've gotten killed in the streets, vernon forrest is one, i forget the name but there was a martial artist a few years ago who chased after a guy who shot him. with the advent of the net we can see how a lot of things actually work. recently i saw a really good martial artist jump into a fight, dude had some fantastic kicks, but he was dealing with two guys with machetes, they kiled his friend, (it's sickening to watch) and they cut him on his calf when he threw a kick, he couldnt even stand and they could have easily killed him too if they wanted. It's a whole different game in the streets, you do not want to grapple with anyone who might have a knife, a boxcutter or a gun. You can't demand a fight be fair just because you're willing, it doesn't work that way.Of course if you have self defense training you have an advantage. Say you end up in a meaningless exchange of words with some dude, and think it's all finished and then next thing you know he has struck you with a weapon or stabbed you it's worthless. That's why bringing up the "in da streetz" argument is fucking stupid. Mma is a sport with rules, street fighting is nothing like that. Surely you can wrap your head around that fact, it's pretty simple.
Yea very easily.Again though, can you imagine some retired ufc champ MMA fighter struggling with a boxer in mma sparring? No. No chance
Of course if you have self defense training you have an advantage. Say you end up in a meaningless exchange of words with some dude, and think it's all finished and then next thing you know he has struck you with a weapon or stabbed you it's worthless. That's why bringing up the "in da streetz" argument is fucking stupid. Mma is a sport with rules, street fighting is nothing like that. Surely you can wrap your head around that fact, it's pretty simple.
You knuckleheads don't quit. Sunfish was the one that mentioned "in da streetz" in the first place. I already clarified that my argument for mma fighters having an advantage in a fight was in unarmed, one on one combat.Lol@ the phrasing of "since the beginning of humans". Modern humans use tools. This makes a lot of things a potential weapon. Does that mean people haven't in the past, and don't continue to fight each other with their bare hands? No. But what's your point? You don't have one. What does any of that have to do with why there's any significance in Conor McGregor potentially being able to beat Floyd Mayweather in a highly contrived scenario which has 0 chance of ever happening?
My argument can be taken out of context to say something dumb about an adjacent and different topic. That's to be expected with any argument. Your argument in its context is still dumb and meandering, and just getting blurred with self defense because you don't really have a clear idea of your own logic, just a gut feeling that it should be important with no rationality behind it.
Yes. I am pretty sure David Haye would destroy Randy Couture.
yea last fought 6 years ago vs 6 months ago is comparable. And besides Randy is smart and has no ego in any type of mma sparring he wrestles Haye with ease
Are you retarded? You asked about a RETIRED MMA champ, sparring a boxer. And Haye would certainl beat the shit out of Randy.
How about a retired boxer fighting an active, former HW UFC champ? Mercer vs Sylvia?
Your blanket statements are silly.